NHL

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: NHL

    In response to Fletcher1's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Thanks.  I don't think I am necessary bringing the most reasoned argument to the table here and I might be totally naive about things if everything gets worked out before the end of the year and the shortened season provides an exciting playoff battle.  Maybe my personal disappointment id seeping into my opinions about the bigger picture, but the basis of my concern, or worry, is this:

    1. That a prolonged work stoppage might be very damaging in a number of NHL cities and may be difficult to recover from.  In some places where the 'slow bleed' of viability has been under way, a long stoppage could be a knockout blow.  I'm not suggesting that teams will up and fold, but they might just keep bleeding instead of recovering when things are back on and their owners won't spend money.  I don't think Dater is just being dramatic.  Two guys on my beer league team have had season tickets since '96 and cancelled them last week.  I think that is dumb, but it does seem to be happening.  And I don't care much about losing southern teams with questionable fan bases, but I think Columbus and Denver are good hockey towns (both sold out for a half dozen years).  Now, I think they are twisting in the wind because of the desires of owners who are in much better situation.  I don't understand how the owners remain a unified front when the risks/costs of the lookout seem so much greater for some. 

    2.  It seems like an unecessary stalemate to me.  The players definitely had a favorable situation for a while.  The owners took back a bunch last time and stand to take back a bunch this time.  It's hard not to conclude that a meeting in the middle would be favorable for everyone, compared to a long work stoppage.  It is also hard not to conclude that the ego of the negotiators plays a role in this.  Bettman can't cave and has to save face.  Fehr's reputation as a hawkish negotiator goes out the window if the players lose badly.  Both guys seem like lousy negotiators, froma big picture standpoint.

    3. I don't think anyone wins if this goes on any longer.  The 'winner' will be getter a bigger piece of a smaller pie.  Then calculate all that was lost during the stoppage, and I'm not sure it makes any sense.  Or, those who win are already the successful franchises and the gap grows larger between profitable and unprofitable teams.  I think the league is better when more teams can consider FA signings (within a cap mind you) and the competitive balance is better. 

    4.  I'm convinced we'll be in the exact same place on January 1st or next summer or whatever.  The same negotiations and the same numbers.  Everybody has flexed their muscles made good on promises to walk away.  Can't the real work begin now?  Whatever the terms may be of an eventual agreement -- can't that be determined now?  Why lose all of the jobs associated with hockey and alienate fans when the outcome/compromise can already be predicted, for the most part.

    I realize that analysis is full of holes and is overly simplistic, but I've typed enough in this thread.

    [/QUOTE]


    Stop being so apologetic.  This is a stupid hockey forum.  We regularly discuss/debate trivialities as shallow as Tim Thomas's politics, skating clowns, and the perils of drafting goalies.

    Prognosticating the effect/results of a lockout, when there is no NHL hockey is as cerebral and important as anything else here, and no more simplistic.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: NHL

     

    Stop being so apologetic.  This is a stupid hockey forum.  We regularly discuss/debate trivialities as shallow as Tim Thomas's politics, skating clowns, and the perils of drafting goalies.

    Prognosticating the effect/results of a lockout, when there is no NHL hockey is as cerebral and important as anything else here, and no more simplistic.

    [/QUOTE]

    Sorry ;)

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: NHL

    In response to Not-A-Shot's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    All around the nation, around the blogosphere, around FB and Twitter and everywhere else, people are talking about the worst this and the worst that.

    I prefer to look on the bright side and use history as a measuring stick.  We have been through this before.  As a result, we got better hockey from it!  No teams folded.  The fans flocked back.  The game took off like a rocket. 

    If it takes them a year to sort it out like last time, fine.  If it takes half a season to figure it out like in '94 fine. 

    I guess what I'm wondering is why, considering the direct recent history, is everyone batting around the worst case scenarios?  I understand that Dater is because doom sells, but what about everyone else?  Fletch, you're a level headed, civil minded person.  Why are you buying into the doom?  stevegm, you're off your rocker on many occasions, but are still all there in general, why are you buying into the doom so much that you are now concerned?

     

    [/QUOTE]


    We're not looking at it from the negative, and based on everything you've said to date about this issue,....and everything in general.. you're not the voice of sunny optimism either.  In fact neither term is applicable in a good/bad way.

    You feel the last lockout suggests things will only get better when an agreement is made.  You're entitled to feel history will repeat itself, but surely you realize there's no guarantee.  Why get so dismissive and defensive when others merely suggest the possibility of other scenarios playing out.  You're solidly behind the owners.  Some of us feel differently, and attempt to explain why. What is so threatening about that?

    You're exxagerating "concern" to deflect some well deserved criticism, not because of your opinions, but because of the way you choose to operate while visiting the playground.

    And  "worst case" scenario's, ... just a matter of how one perceives things.  For me...resulting fiscal pain is "best case".  I hope the money pot shrinks.  I think a lot of people feel the same way.  Neither right nor wrong...just my opinion. 

    Like you...this whole thing isn't that important to me.  But in the world of BDC, it currently seems like an interesting topic.  No need to try and bump up the emotional significance.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from stevegm. Show stevegm's posts

    Re: NHL


    Sorry ;)

     

     

    Priceless !!!

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: NHL

    If the lockout goes any further, Columbus might fold.

    And that's a great hockey town.

    The NHL is doomed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: NHL

    These guys had better be careful.  If the fool around much longer, six guys I know are not going to buy ticktets next year.

    The NHL is doomed.

    I'm very concerned.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: NHL

    I feel bad for the little guys, you know the restaurant owners that built places around the corner from the arenas and live off someone else's success.

    If the NHL doesn't start up again soon, Mike Hartzof won't be able to make his Caddy payment.

    Oh, the horror.  It's just so unfair.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Not-A-Shot. Show Not-A-Shot's posts

    Re: NHL

    If this continues, more and more people are going to cancel their season tickets in Nashville.  It's already a shaky fanbase, so this is bad. 

    Boston Bruins hockey might be ruined if Nashville folds.

    And then I'll die.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Fletcher1. Show Fletcher1's posts

    Re: NHL

    That was neat when you acted like an adult for one post back there.  C'mon, quit pouting.

     

Share